Vote Up
8
Votes
Vote Down
Jul 25, 2011 6:45 AM
By _sw
13 comments

“Updating your Linux installation? Well, you’d better keep your fingers crossed when rebooting, because there’s a high chance if your distribution pushes critical system upgrades (most do) that it won’t ever boot again. Even the devout freetards agree that if you want even a slightly up to date system you’d best pray that it doesn’t randomly break after an upgrade.” – Me

“This is a bold face lie, but what else is new.” – Adam King

If it’s my personal experience with GNU/Loonix, it must be lies! Even if I’ve had it happen to me four times!

Related Trademarks

#1 Posted by JoeMonco on Jul 25, 2011 6:56 AM

This is a bold face lie, but what else is new?

#2 Posted by DigitalAtheist on Jul 25, 2011 8:38 AM

Having done the upgrade/update no workee no more deal with Linux, I know that linux is a waste of time and hard drive space. Better to pop it on an easily erasable thumb drive and never trust important data to it.

#3 Posted by bassboy on Jul 25, 2011 1:27 PM

Adam’s right. That would be like a non-Winbred telling that Windows gets a BSOD everyday.

Breaking happens, BSODs happen. But it’s the exception rather than the norm.

Grow up.

#4 Posted by administrator on Jul 25, 2011 2:03 PM

Do you even know what a bluescreen is these days? It’s not a software issue like in Windows 95, it’s a hardware issue! It means your RAM faulted, or something equally heinous.

Meanwhile, Linux desktops breaking after an update are common:

http://www.google.ca/search?&q=ubuntu+won’t+boot+after+update

#5 Posted by ReverseControllerSE on Jul 25, 2011 4:51 PM

BSODs happen.

True.

Once a year (if that) – and by god I wanted to RipANewOne™ to any AMD/ATI employee I could get my hands on, the last time that happened (alas none were at hand)...

—————

BSOD == Update breaking

That is a bold face lie, but what else is new?

#6 Posted by DrLoser on Jul 25, 2011 5:24 PM

Adam’s right. But what else is new?

Wait … Actually Adam is an ignorant buffoon with a psychotic criminal streak. So let’s examine the evidence, shall we?

Unfortunately we can’t, which suits Linux advocates quite fine, thankyou. Somebody in the tech press should actually do this one day.

My personal experience of Linux is that the flakier distros bomb out horribly the minute the BiannualForcedDeathMarch™ occurs, if not before. (My personal record is SuSE.) RedHat tends to be considerably better; CentOS is surprisingly good if you have a full-time sysadmin acting as a gatekeeper (man, you should have seen the installation instructions at Envisional. Worth it if it’s core to your business, but farcical on the desktop.)

I’m led to believe that Debian Stable is better.

But so what? Any self-respecting community would have a sort of Which? Distro branch that specifically measures the brokenness of distro updates. Does anybody, even a Loon, really need a broken distro update?

Jerst arskin. Because they happen all the time, you know.

Unlike BSoDs.

#7 Posted by Adam_King on Jul 25, 2011 7:48 PM

“If it’s my personal experience with GNU/Loonix, it must be lies!”

No, it’s a lie because it’s a lie. And you, the author of the lie are therefore a liar.

And if you need proof, here is a convenient Google search, which is apparently all you need to proof anything: http://www.google.com/search?q=_sw+is+a+liar

4,420,000 pages on how you are a liar. Need I say more?

#8 Posted by JoeMonco on Jul 26, 2011 1:00 AM

“4,420,000 pages on how you are a liar. Need I say more?”

No, you don’t need to say more. Thank you very much!

#9 Posted by Ted on Jul 26, 2011 1:24 PM

“And if you need proof, here is a convenient Google search, which is apparently all you need to proof anything: http://www.google.com/search?q=_sw+is+a+liar

4,420,000 pages on how you are a liar. “

The Pogson method; using numbers of Google results to prove a point while not quite knowing how search strings work.

#10 Posted by DrLoser on Jul 26, 2011 4:39 PM

I think we’ve proved that Adam has no concept of Number whatsoever. This is just one more example of his hopeless, flailing, incompetency.

Here’s one for you, Adam: I tried the exact same search on Bing, and it came up with only 356 results.

Proof positive that Google is better than Bing by about four magnitudes!

Oh, you didn’t follow that? http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOrder_of_magnitude&ei=hCMvTvzIMIug-wbUzKTLDg&usg=AFQjCNGu_Va2De3ifvPK1uVpoK2RwOb2Xw.

Truth through Wikipedia through Google. You know it makes sense!

#11 Posted by Adam_King on Jul 26, 2011 7:16 PM

“The Pogson method; using numbers of Google results to prove a point while not quite knowing how search strings work.”

Looks like TM Repository man is a disciple as well.

#12 Posted by kurkosdr on Jul 27, 2011 4:14 PM

“BSODs happen”

Only when the hardware is bad, or when you buy hardware from crappy companies. Kernel panics happen for the same reason (instead of bad drivers we have bad binary blobs), with the difference that Linux doesn’t bother to tell you whether it was bad hardware or a bad driver (excuse me, “binary blob” in freetarded terminology).

Anyway Sir, your case is already covered by AtLeastItDoesntBSOD™.

#13 Posted by reactosguy on Jul 29, 2011 11:03 PM

“Adam’s right. That would be like a non-Winbred telling that Windows gets a BSOD everyday.”

[citation needed]

“4,420,000 pages on how you are a liar. Need I say more?”

Adam Ant King, there’s no mention of _sw anywhere. And I searched the first ten pages!

Honestly, get a clue on how to use the “quality vs. quantity” concept. Maybe next time, your logic will be a thousand times better.

Except it won’t.

You must be signed in to leave comments.